Thursday, June 6, 2013

Two special elections to replace two older Senators, with the late Senator Lautenberg an especially significant case (he was 89).

I think I've written about Massachusetts before, but it's looking very much like a wasted opportunity. Ed Markey, the solid favorite, will turn 67 in July. That's not young!

The Republican in the race, Gabriel Gomez, is only 47 (he'll be 48 in August). So there's some hope of a relatively young new Senator. But I'll be pretty surprised if he wins.

In New Jersey, the only Republican in the race so far is Steve Lonegan, 57. It's looking as of right this minute that he's reasonably likely to win the nomination, but not be a very strong general election candidate at all in the October special, so the real question appears to be on the Democratic side. Three candidates there: Cory Booker, 44; Frank Pallone, 61; and Rush Holt, 64. C'mon, New Jersey!

By the way, it doesn't matter much in the long run, but for whatever it's worth the new placeholder Senator from New Jersey, is...48. Or maybe 47. He was born in 1965, says his newly-updated wikipedia page, and we have him as a 1987 Notre Dame grad, but so far no date of birth.

9 comments:

Unrelated question on the NJ Senate seat. Gov. Christie (a Republican) appointed a Republican to fill the unexpired term of a Democratic Senator until a special election could be held. In 2009, a similar situation arose in my state, New Hampshire. Judd Gregg, Republican Senator, accepted for a week or so President Obama's nomination to be Commerce Secretary. Our then-governor, John Lynch, a Democrat, named a Republican, Bonnie Newman, to replace him, the rationale being that voters had elected a Republican to the seat so the seat should be filled by a Republican until a new election could be held. It struck me as odd that no pundits or even partisan Democrats that I am aware of called upon Christie to pick a Democrat to fill the seat for the interim - they just assumed he would fill the seat with a Republican. Maybe it's a difference between the partisan demands of Republicans and Democrats, maybe it's a difference between the political atmosphere in February 2009 and today, maybe it's a difference between a governor with national political ambitions and one without, or maybe I just don't have enough data points (occasions when a governor of one party got to appoint a replacement for a senator of another party), but I think it's strange that no one to my knowledge thought to ask Christie to appoint a Democrat.

Also, Bonnie Newman would probably have been the most liberal Republican in the Senate. She had backed Lynch in his successful 2004 gubernatorial campaign (she was co-chair of Republicans for Lynch). So Republicans were not terribly pleased by the prospect of her replacing Gregg--and neither, after some reconsideration was Gregg.

I must admit I do not necessarily share Jonathan's interest in having a younger Senate "per se". Personal story: I was at a marketing class 15 years ago, and they were asking me what to do with a company that had an oldish workforce. I, without thinking, answered: "replace the old guys with younger ones". The teacher quickly retorted: "Do you know who Konrad Adenauer was?" (as a matter of fact, I did- chancellor of Germany between his 73 and his 87 years of age- rebuilt Germany from the rubble of World War II). So to sum up, I'd much rather have an 80-year-old Senator with good ideas than a vapid 45-year-old Ted Cruz. Young does not necessarily equal better, specially not in this hyperpartisan Senate.

In the first debate, the candidates agreed to define "middle class" as having an income between $80,000 and 175,000. The median income in the state is $65,000. Apparently, no special wisdom comes from being either old or young.

Or maybe the problem is that we don't have a "fair number" of lower income Senators.

Or maybe we should judge candidates based on their own merits rather than voting based on identity politics. (For the record, this young Republican isn't voting for Gomez.)